English is not my native tongue but when referring to distorted I think of deformed, warped... which is how too high FOV looks to me. But I would not call too low FOV distorted. It is zoomed in, magnified ... Anyway correctly calculated FOV shows normal image. Changing this recommended FOV results with distorted image. Seeing enough of apex and peripheral vision is another story...
Will check the actual FoV that I'm using once home but this is new to me, that using the FoV calculator would result in the correct imagery, except it might be so zoomed in it would actually be useless, which was the case for me. That being the case and when using a 24 inch monitor what's the point in worrying about "correct FoV" anyway if it's completely redundant. I hope I will remember to check this tonight and also take a screenshot.
Okay, this is my point of view which i guess is way different from all the others here. When we talk about FOV, we are talking about a zoom in a generic way, but technically when we increase/decrease the FOV we are increasing/decreasing the focal length of the virtual camera , we are not doing a digital zooming like a pan/crop of the immage. If you've ever used a DSLR for example with even the standard 18-55mm lens you can understand what i mean. Since i'm bad to explain something in english, i copy-paste: "The focal length of a lens determines the angle of view. A lens is considered to be a "normal lens", in terms of its angle of view on a camera, when its focal length is approximately equal to the diagonal dimension of the film format or image sensor format. The resulting diagonal angle of view of about 53 degrees is often said to approximate the angle of human vision; since the angle of view of a human eye is at least 140 degrees, more careful authors will qualify that, for example as "similar to the angle of crisp human vision." In-game cameras, from cockpit to tv, behave exactly as real cameras, no more no less. That means, when you are decreasing the FOV you are increasing the focal lenght, and you are going near to a "Telephoto" angle of view which is not like seeing the world in a tube. What you perceive is different focal planes, different distances. Example Spoiler In the middle, the photo is taken X meters far to the statue with 50mm focal lenght. What you see in the photo is near to be what the person who taken the photo see. To translate this in rF, the statue is the cockpit, the background is the track. This is within the range of "normal" angle of view. In the left, the photo is taken with 24mm focal lenght, the statue has the same size of the statue in the middle, right? Because the photo is taken X-Y meters far to the statue. This is within the range of "wide-angle" angle of view. To translate that in rF, you have increased the FOV more than 60, and you have set the seat position forward. The cockpit has the same size, but the focal planes of the track are messed up. In the right, the photo is taken with 85mm focal lenght, again, the statue has the same size, because the photo is taken X+Y meters far to the statue. This is within the range of "Telephoto" angle of view. The building in background seems to be right behind the statue, but irl is not, the real distance from the statue to the building is the one you see in the photo in the middle. To translate that in rF, you have decreased the FOV, it should be near 29, and you have set the seat position backward. So, decreasing the FOV to acheive the "real view" is pointless in the moment you keep the same aspect ratio of the monitor. You are just going in the telephoto angle of view which is far be realistic. If you have a 22" monitor, you have to accept the fact you will never had realistic proportions, and even if you think you have them by decreasing the FOV, they are not, you lose sense of speed on the straights and gain sense of speed while turning, you will see a car ahead way near to you than the reality, you will miss every apex, you will be slow in the corners because you have the feeling to be too fast and you will turn into your opponents when going side by side. If you want realistic proportions with a single monitor, what you need is only a 32+" monitor placed right behind your wheel, and keep a FOV angle within the "normal" angle of view, 50-60. If you don't have that, there is no FOV setting that will provide you realistic proportions, and is way better to accept the fact the world you see in the monitor is smaller than reality, than messing up all the rest. You should go below 50 or over 60 only when you want to do something special like taking a picture or to acheive a special onboard camera. For example, in every FPS games i play i set the FOV at 90, only because i want to see the enemies on my side.
Without going into the discussion of a calculated ideal FOV vs a subjective adapted one then in RL there is one(1) ideal seat position that gives a lot of advantages conserning optimal visual (and physical) cues for the driver. Placed in this position the driver is able to correct and control the car much better than if positioned further ahead or behind this optimal position. As I faintly recall positioning the driver too much ahead was the basic reason Breedloves Land Speed record car (Sonic Arrow) was close to suicidal allready before it crashed at 675 mph. Hehe bytheway a refurbished version of this suicidal car is at sale at the moment
Just read the post with the nice pictures above. Appreciated Principally the compare with different focal lengths is correct. But the conclusion that to get the correct rate between near and distant objects you have to use a monitor of 32+" is not correct (IMO). I have been a member of iRacing and while I payed for the membership I used their FOV calculator to good use. My monitor is only 20" and my eyes is 50cm from the screen. Using the calculator my FOV should be 47 (degr). And to the best of my experience (= from whatICanSee) the near and distant objects have the natural proportions. OK?
Yup, that's a faulty conclusion. If the wording was, "to get a useful 1:1 FOV with a monitor placed directly behind the steering wheel housing" then I'd agree. 27" monitors (including ultrawides) at that location mostly work, but you often won't see some things on the dash or a rearview mirror that's mounted high (e.g. NASCAR).
@Nielsen I never had a 20" in my rig so i really can't talk about experience, but 47 degr of FOV is still smaller than the natural human point of view (always talking about 16:9 aspect ratio). The thing is, is small but probably not too much, the real problem is when using 30, 25 degr of FOV which is far to be a realistic angle of view. @Emery Let's spilt 2 categories of simracers: 1. Who looks at the monitor thinking to be inside that virtual world. 2. Who looks at the monitor thinking to merge the virtual world to the real stuff around them. Type 1 will tends to use a visual like that Spoiler random pic from internet, extreme example You will see the virtual wheels in their screen sometimes. Type 2 will tends to use a visual like that Spoiler Yeah this is so extreme i know, but you can easily see what type 2 guys want to acheive (money apart) The fact is, for type 2 simracers, to achive that, so to merge the virtual world to the real world around of you, what you need is a big (but not too much) monitor placed right behind the wheel whitout messing up with the FOV, so you will use the "natural" human angle of view. With some cars you will not see the gauges yes, and it's right, you won't see 2 cockpits in the same time, the virtual one and the real one, you want everything to be merged togheter. You can't acheive that with a 20" monitor without seeing the track like in a teleobjective, you have to accept that you will see everything smaller than in real life. For type 1 simracer, well, it really doesn't matter where the monitor is placed or which FOV you use. I personally would use a VR for this purpose. Said that, everyone is free to use the favourite FOV of course, but a 20-35 FOV in a 16:9 screen is not realistic, you are not seeing the virtual world through human eyes.
Probably, and seat postion first is messed up. But my point is that probably that guy is thinking to see his arms in that monitor, he is thinking that the virtual wheel is the one he have in his hands. And for this purpose, VR is the way (if money allows it). BTW these were my 2 (probably more) cents in matter of FOV, is what i answer every time a mate ask me about that. Then of course we will use what we likes more, and FOV calculator are right, they do their job, it's math, but the job they do is different from what i've explained.
Assessing monitor size with the natural human FOV(avg binocular FOV = 114 degr) is quite misleading. Or plain simply uncorrect. A better analogy is to compare the monitor to a window. Or in a racing game to a (simulated) visual part of the front screen. If we imply we have calculated the correct FOV angle for the monitor used - then on a small monitor (as my 20") you often only see part of the virtual windscreen. On a larger widescreen monitor you can probably see both the virtual windscreen and maybe part of the sidescreens. But implying the correct calculated FOV then in both examples you see an "undistorted"/simulated natural view of both nearby and distant objects. The only difference is that the guy using the 20" monitor(moi ) is slightly handicapped because he is driving his virtual car based on the reduced outlook you get looking through a rather small window. At least for me this is quite understandable
It's all splitting hairs a bit, but technically I would say anything that doesn't look correct could be labelled distorted. Fisheye view is more obvious, but even a little that way, or with too low FOV, aren't showing you what you would see in real life and are therefore distorted as well (if you think in terms of having to wear some wacky glasses in real life to change the FOV you see through them, you would say they are distorting). Anyway, I digress @krusti Your reference to cameras certainly is somewhat relevant, you do see people with too-high FOV then shifting their seat forward in the game to hide (or 'expand') the overly-compressed cockpit and make it feel more real size - which doesn't fix the track and surroundings still being squashed into the screen. But: (my bold) I think you're a bit too hung up on having an overall 'correct' FOV. If I had a 1000" screen at 30" distance, that thing physically occupies 166° of my vision vertically. For everything drawn on the screen to appear lifesize I'd need to set the game to that (of course each pixel would be nearly half an inch tall/wide, so it wouldn't be pretty to look at). If I keep 50-60° everything is going to be too big. When I set realistic FOV on my old 21.5" screen which was just out of arm's reach, what I was seeing was all realistically sized. But it was like driving a real life car with all the windows blacked out and just a monitor-size hole facing the windscreen. It was actually still cool, coming from high-FOV, to see the correct proportions in the distance, but of course I couldn't see anything near where I actually was. A car in front of me might have felt closer than reality, because my overall view was so limited and focused on that small area in front of me (so the car 'filled my view' despite still being some distance away), but it was being drawn at a realistic size for me. But, this is all a real-FOV discussion. If sense of speed is the objective, and your screen (or screens) isn't big enough to show you objects close to you with real FOV, you probably need to compromise. I personally didn't mind losing some straightline sense of speed in order to get proper perspective, but I've since moved to triples and it's a whole new game now.
Well, It's definitely an enjoyable read and I'm learning some here and there. I've found FOV to be much like FFB which is a very personal preference, what looks or feels good to me on my rig may be seriously out of adjustment for you. I've thrown out the measurements and math and now use my trusty binary solution. My ultrawide slides forward/backward so I get comfortable in my rig, extend my left arm straight out, when my index finger touches the screen I'm dialed in. Oh, also I'm running a very cheap Thrustmaster T150 now that works well enough and as funny as this may sound, I've hacked off the top 4 inches of the rim with a hacksaw and created an F1 hybrid rim. I was very tired of the cheap rim blocking too much of the screen, so yes that actually happened.
I think I recall a video by Mark Weber(the Red Bull F1 pilot) where he had modded his sim-wheel in a very similar manner.
So again I say what about resale? Not sure how quick the T150 is, but reducing the wheel weight probably is a good thing generally. And clearing your view of the screen as well of course.
To the OP: Changing to bumper view increases sense of speed on same FOV. I found it also to be more confident in door to door racing because my view is not obstructed with cockpit which on low FOV can really be issue. Of course it kills immersion but on my gfx setting cockpit doesn't look good anyway
Sorry guys been so busy with work barely have had time to race. I have no video, I'll get a picture up. I literally grabbed a hacksaw and made two clean cuts removing the upper curve of the rim. Sort of an F1/GT hybrid, worked great. However, I just took delivery of a new CSL Elite so the T150 must go. It's a year old and works great but probably not worth much now that I've modified it.
